Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (24 March) . . Page.. 739 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Our definition was broader, but, if PALM or Mr Smyth is happy with that, I do not think we will argue with it particularly. We had in mind not only that there would have been a notice put in, which is what Mr Smyth's amendment appears to be doing, but that it may not be that someone who is selling a property has put in a notice that it would be demolished. It may well just be clear because the building is boarded up and falling down, and they would not have got a notice. Anyway, we can have a bit more debate about that. I think they are all the amendments that we are dealing with now. Thank you, everyone, for the support, and I hope it is implemented well in the community and that there are enough personnel on board to deal with possible extreme demands at this late stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Detail Stage

Bill, by leave, taken as a whole

MS TUCKER (12.07): I move amendment No. 1, circulated in my name, which reads:

Page 2, line 15, clause 5, paragraph (b), omit "and".

Amendment agreed to.

MS TUCKER (12.07): I move amendment No. 2, circulated in my name, which reads:

Page 2, line 15, clause 5, after paragraph (b), insert the following paragraphs:

"(ba) by omitting from paragraph (1)(f) "or" (last occurring);

(bb) by inserting after paragraph (1)(f) the following paragraphs:

'(fa) premises in respect of which there has been given an approval within the meaning of Part 6 of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 for a development that involves the demolition of the premises;

(fb) premises that are offered for sale or sold as unfit for human occupation and that the vendor expects on reasonable grounds -

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .